1. PF Contest - Win "Conquering the Physics GRE" book! Click Here to Enter
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

GR - Lie Derivative of metric - Killing Equation

  1. Jul 18, 2017 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Question attached. hell.png

    2. Relevant equations

    3. The attempt at a solution

    I'm not really sure how to work with what is given in the quesiton without introducing my knowledge on lie derivatives.

    We have: ##(L_ug)_{uv} = U^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}g_{uv}+g_{u\alpha}\nabla_vU^{\alpha}+g_{\alpha v}\nabla_u U^{\alpha}##

    Where ##L_u## denotes the lie derivative in the direction of ##u##

    Where the first term vanishes on the assumption of a levi-civita connection by the fundamental theorem of riemmanian geometry. ##U^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}g_{uv}= U^{\alpha}(\partial_{\alpha}g_{uv} + \Gamma^{c}_{\alpha v} g_{uc} + \Gamma^{c}_{\alpha u} g_{vc}) ##

    And so the fact that ##w^u \partial_u g_{ab} =0 \implies \partial_t g_{ab} =0 ## vanishes here, implies that the connection terms vanish (here I need an arguement that they vanish individually, and that the sum can not vanish) I can then conclude that this implies we are working in Minkowski space-time.

    And I can then use my the following knowledge on Lie derivatives to obtain an answer:

    ##w^u \partial_u g_{ab} =0 \implies \partial_t g_{ab} =0 ## ; i.e. the metric has no ##t## dependence so I know that this means that the Lie derivative (1) vanishes:

    And then I have

    ##(L_ug)_{uv} =0= g_{u\alpha}\nabla_vU^{\alpha}+g_{\alpha v}\nabla_u U^{\alpha}=\nabla_vU_u+\nabla_u U_v##

    ##\implies k=-1 ##

    However the question makes no reference to the requirement of needing Lie derivative, so I'm not too sure about what I've done here,

    Can I start from first principles more? Any hint appreciated.

    Thanks in advance.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 18, 2017 #2
    Here's what I think is one way. Consider [tex] \nabla_\mu W_\nu = \partial_\mu W_\nu -\Gamma^s_{\nu \mu} W_s = \partial_\mu W_\nu -\tfrac12 W_s g^{s \sigma} ( \partial_\mu g_{\sigma \nu } + \partial_\nu g_{\sigma \mu} - \partial_\sigma g_{\nu \mu}) = \partial_\mu W_\nu -\tfrac12 W^\sigma ( \partial_\mu g_{\sigma \nu } + \partial_\nu g_{\sigma \mu} - \partial_\sigma g_{\nu \mu}) = \partial_\mu W_\nu -\tfrac12 W^\sigma ( \partial_\mu g_{\sigma \nu } + \partial_\nu g_{\sigma \mu}) [/tex]
    where the last term vanishes by assumption. Now since [itex] W^\mu = (1,0,0,0) [/itex], [itex] W_\mu = g_{\nu \mu} W^\nu = g_{0 \mu}[/itex]. Therefore the equation can be rewritten as [tex] \partial_\mu W_\nu -\tfrac12 W^\sigma ( \partial_\mu g_{\sigma \nu } + \partial_\nu g_{\sigma \mu}) = \partial_\mu g_{0 \nu} - \tfrac12 ( \partial_\mu g_{0 \nu} + \partial_\nu g_{0 \mu}) = \tfrac12 \partial_\mu g_{0 \nu} - \tfrac12 \partial_\nu g_{0 \mu}. [/tex] It is easy to check that [itex] \nabla_\nu W_\mu = -(\tfrac12 \partial_\mu g_{0 \nu} - \tfrac12 \partial_\nu g_{0 \mu}) [/itex], so [itex]k=-1[/itex] as expected.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted